Taste my tasty firstness!

Guys in my high school subjected women to a pattern of unwelcome sexual advances all the time. It was no big deal.

Unfortunately, 3:43-44, going back to add "tasty" to your post did not improve it, and muddled the issue of who was actually FIRST to say FIRST without double-posting.

As you sow, so shall you reap.

Shenaningans at the Patent Ball? It seems out of place. Does Pitcock have an undergard degree in engineering? That would explain his total awkwardness with women.

Paragraph 56 is the best in the complaint: "Pitcock alleged in his federal lawsuit that he is a 'rising star in [] litigation.' If so, he should have known there is no federal court subject matter jurisdiction over his lawsuit."

Pure. Gold.

I thought that was a cheap shot actually. Patent lawyers generally know squat about procedure.

On the other hand, the sexual harassment stuff is awesome. What a tool! You can bet the firm knew about this well before the Christmas party.

3:57 - I was just about to post that exact paragraph.

It makes for good reading, but why include it in a complaint? It has questionable legal significance (w/r/t a defamation suit, it could have been phrased much better) and comes off as an attempt to further defame Pitcock..

Is really fair to make vague allusions to anti-semitism at S&C when the future managing partner of the firm is an Orthodox Rabbi?

3:57, that's not gold, it's platinum.

This guy is about to get a 5 inch revisit of his bris.

I agree about that being a "cheap shot." It weakens an otherwise sharp complaint. The point of the lawsuit isn't that he's a shit lawyer -- it's that he is an allegedly prolific harasser. It comes across as a gratuitous dig.

I feel so bad for his wife, kid on the way? Wow. Just wow.

If he lives in New Jersey and the firm is in NY, how come there is no subject matter jurisdiction? Hardly seems like a "legal certainty" that the damages will not exceed $75,000.
Plus, the complaint reincorporates every paragraph from the previous causes of action, which is a no-no in most jurisdictions. (Just search for 11th Circuit opinions by Judge Tjoflat containing "shotgun pleading.") Maybe NY is different.

At least two of the female associates on the Kasowitz web site have removed their profile photos. . .

I can't believe how stupid this guy was to sue Kasowitz for defamation. Did he have the same idiot lawyer as Roger Clemens? You screwed up, you got caught, move on and lay low.

Unreal. Can't wait to read the divorce papers from wifey.

4:12 - it's a partnership, not a corporation.
Do the work.

Lat: I don't understand orthodox jew comment. anyone?

How stupid is this law firm? The guy can't get another job and has nothing to lose in dragging this out. The law firm on the other hand has to potentially drag out dozens of female associates to dish the dirt. How demeaning for them. Who'd want to work for this TTT then? How many laterals are NOT talking to them right now because of the history of this matter?

"Just search for 11th Circuit opinions by Judge Tjoflat containing "shotgun pleading." "

Listen, hotshot, any buffoon can make up fake judges to sound authoritative. See, for example, any of Judge Kpoostynt's views on this matter.

"Uncomfortable, Employee K walked away. As she did, Pitcock slapped her buttocks. Pitcock insisted that Employee L have drinks with him, threatening her that if she did not, he would change her title to 'office bitch.'"

There are just so many WOW moments here.

1. Interesting that even Sullivan & Cromwell uses disrespect as a verb (paragraph 3). The word must be standard English everywhere.
2. What is the difference between defamation and injurious falsehood?
3. I believe that if any other partner lives in N.J., there would be no diversity jurisdiction.
4. Why would anyone ask for a declaration that pleadings in another case have no merit. Is that something a court would issue a D.J. on?
5. Guys in my high school always plead that they repeat and reallege the prior paragraphs as if more fully set forth herein.

4:28 LOL
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/about/judges/tjoflat.php

-Judge Kpoostynt

I agree that publicizing the fact that the firm was supposedly clueless about this behavior for so long makes Kasowitz look bad. Going to hurt recruiting.

Paragraph 56... OH SNAP!!!

LOL:
33. Despite Employee F's insistence that Pitcock need not accompany her upstairs, Pitcock headed toward the elevator. The building doorman told Employee that he had just let her boyfriend go upstairs, a comment Pitcock apparently did not hear.
At the elevator, Employee F reiterated that Pitcock did not need to escort her, but Pitcock ignored her protestations.

34. Knowing that her boyfhend was inside the apartment and wanting him to answer the door, Employee F pretended that her keys were lost and knocked on her apartment door. Pitcock was surprised and asked Employee F why she was knocking on her own door. When told by Employee F that her boyfhend was inside the apartment, Pitcock said, "This will be awkward."

35. Employee F's boyfriend answered the door and let them into the apartment. With his plan for pursuing Employee F thwarted, Pitcock left as quickly as possible.

To "How stupid is this law firm?"

They just gutted, cleaned and cooked the guy. So I'd say not so stupid.

4:35, that's hilarious. "This will be awkward."

4:33 -- yes, disrespect has been successfully verbed.

Re: Paragraph 56. I don't know the facts, but the Complaint says he lives in NJ. Isn't it possible he has diversity jurisdiction if he is seeking more than 75K? Assuming, complete diversity amongst the parties (the PR FIrm and KB)?

Re: Paragraph 56. I don't know the facts, but the Complaint says he lives in NJ. Isn't it possible he has diversity jurisdiction if he is seeking more than 75K? Assuming, complete diversity amongst the parties (the PR FIrm and KB)?

Re: Paragraph 56. I don't know the facts, but the Complaint says he lives in NJ. Isn't it possible he has diversity jurisdiction if he is seeking more than 75K? Assuming, complete diversity amongst the parties (the PR FIrm and KB)?

Since every complaint I've ever seen drafted by my firm does the "repeat and reallege" thing, I looked up this "shotgun pleading" stuff. For anyone interested, here's what Tjoflat writes in an opinion (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/305/305.F3d.1293.00-13002.html):

"The second and third amended complaints are quintessential "shotgun" pleadings.9 The typical shotgun complaint contains several counts, each one incorporating by reference the allegations of its predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the counts (i.e., all but the first) contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions. Consequently, in ruling on the sufficiency of a claim, the trial court must sift out the irrelevancies, a task that can be quite onerous.10 In this case, the proposed third amended complaint contains 127 paragraphs (six more than the second amended complaint) and nine counts, with each count incorporating by reference every paragraph that precedes it.11 Instead of requiring the plaintiffs to replead, the court attempted — and admirably so — to ascertain exactly which facts formed the basis of the plaintiffs' federal law claims."

THERE IS NO COMPLETE DIVERSITY IF EVEN ONE PARTNER IS A NJ DOMICILIARY!!! ENOUGH!!!

Lat, can we nominate this douchebag for Douchebag of the Year? Holy shit, what a douchebag.

4:39/4:40,

You forgot to reassert and reallege your first post in each successive post.

Would it be fair to say that most defamation lawsuits are a huge mistake? This and Clemens are obvious examples, but anyone should twice about initiating an action where the key issues are whether you did something horrible (or are a something horrible) and 2) your reputation. Talk about opening up the door.

Wow - just wow. What a scumbag.

Tjoflat is somewhat of an extremist on this stuff. He doesn't even like it when there is a fact section and each count incorporates all the pargraphs that come before count 1. But incorporating the actual counts as well truly drives him nuts.

Shouldn't the superlawyers at S&C know the rule about switching tenses? Compare "KBT&F Terminated PitcocK" with "Pitcock Pretends KPT&F Wronged Him."

4:31, I think you missed another good part of 42, just before your quote. More to the point of d-baggery:

"42. ... Employees J and K were standing together at the bar when Pitcock approached them, propositioned Employee J and bragged about his 'mansion' in New Jersey and his purported 'multi-million' salary, with which he said he 'could make [her] very happy.'"

4:46, it sounds to me like they're using the past tense to refer to an incident that occurred in the past, and the present tense to refer to something that is happening right now. What's the problem?

Any armchair psychiatrists out there want a crack at diagnosing this guy? There pretty much has to be a medical term for what this guy is.

/Douche bag, while accurate, is arguably not a medical term.

4.37 - they also cleaned, gutten and cooked all the female associates who will have to appear as witnesses, should they be dumb enough to take this to trial.

A "smart" law firm would have kept it in their pants and not fired off the press release in the first place. Look at where it has lead.

TTT if ever there was one.

Who the fuck practices in the Eleventh Circuit anyway? Repeating and realleging through the counts is standard practice here in the far more important and populous Ninth Circuit. I understand the same is true of the First and Second Circuits (given that S&C did it here, I'd be shocked if the 2nd ascribed to the idiosyncratic view of one crank judge in the middle of nowhere).

" 7. Defendant Pitcock is a citizen of New Jersey"; you can be a citizen of a state??

I'm from Canada - honest question

I'm still trying to figure out what upset KBT&F so much about M&F's announcement that they had to issue that press release of theirs in the first place. Geez, someone left your firm. Bygones.

4:49 - The problem is they use past tense in all of the allegations under the heading that uses present tense.

4:50...if you are seriously from Canada, and that is an honest question...

yes, we here in the usa are citizens both of the united states and of the state wherein we reside (if any).

4:50 - Yes, that's why the concept is called "diversity of citizenship."

Seems like the Kasowitz firm knew about Pitcock's mistreatment of women for some time and did squat about it. That firm is a sitting target for its own Title VII suit...

That alleged PDF link to the complaint just brings me back to the original post here.

4:52 -- ah, got it. sorry; didn't read the complaint, i was just going off your previous post. -4:49

Federalism, 4:50.

do canadians not have citizenship of their province/territory as well as of the commonwealth?

4:50 Canadian. It's in the articles too, but the 14th makes clear -

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Everyone puts arcane crap in complaints, usually because they're afraid of it getting dismissed for some stupid reason. E.g., the entire opening paragraph of the complaint. We all know from the title immediately above it's a complaint and we don't care who the lawyers are. And why does the only actor named Pitcock needed to be defined "Pitcock"?

Anyone know where this winner worked before Kasowitz? Probably didn't walk in their door and start acting like this. No doubt there are associates, paralegals and secretaries from his old firm(s) that will be coming out of the woodwork to tell their own stories about this guy. If this case actually goes through some discovery, it will be the gift that keeps on giving.

yeah but the 14th was only written to apply to former slaves. everyone knows that.

For the sake of my internal reading voice, is his name pronounced "Pit-cock" (as in, "Pit-dick") or "Pit-co" (as in, "Newco")?

4:57: Articles about the guy said he was at STB prior to Kasowitz.

4:50(3)

Yes, Atlanta is in the middle of nowhere. And I guess Florida doesn't count either.

But if you're going to be that arrogant, at least know the difference between "ascribe" and "subscribe."

Well I guess it's settled, repeatedly incorporating previous counts (which makes no sense, BTW) is acceptable practice in the most-reversed, laughingstock circuit in the land. Move on.

4:53(4), try this link for the Complaint:

http://abovethelaw.com/Kasowitz%20v%20Pitcock%20Complaint.pdf

4:12 - you misunderstand shotgun pleadings and judge tjoflat's condemnation of them. Shotgun pleadings are when you allege the kitchen sink stole your water at the same time you allege the toilet stole the same water. You are merely throwing any potential cause at your opponent hoping that something sticks (or like a shotgun, you shoot the single shot complaint that contains thousands of pellets of allegations hoping one thing hits what you're trying to shoot). Tjoflat says those are bad. When you have a cause of action that realleges all previous paragraphs it is just a typical complaint.

This is just awesome. Highly entertaining.

Best thing to hit biglaw since the Charney complaint.

5:02, from this, 4:12 seems right.

The typical shotgun complaint contains several counts, each one incorporating by reference the allegations of its predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the counts (i.e., all but the first) contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions. Consequently, in ruling on the sufficiency of a claim, the trial court must sift out the irrelevancies, a task that can be quite onerous.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/305/305.F3d.1293.00-13002.html

Tjoflat sounds like a huge load and must suck to work for. In the opinion linked above, I can see lots of stuff wrong with his grammar, but I'm sure he thinks it's 100% correct.

Bigger dickbag: This Pitcock guy or Mike Stark?

5:09 -- Pitcock often made comments about sucking to work for a huge load. One of the things that led to this suit, actually.

Since people are quibbling with the complaint...

First, Microsoft Word allows you to insert an en dash. See, e.g., paragraph 4. You don't need to half-ass it and use two hyphens.

Second, paragraph 4 should have em dashes, not bastard en dashes, and there should not be spaces before or after the dashes.

Sounds to me like Pitcock was Pitcock-blocked.

5:06 -
That's not the point of it though. The point is that there were nine counts and all were simply a mish-mash in the opening paragraphs that did nothing but confuse a reader.

I dare you to find a complaint that does not incorporate by reference other paragraphs.

Guys in my high school use to incorporate by reference meaningless facts in their pleadings all the time. It was no big deal.

-Tjoflat's Frat Brother.

For those of you wondering what Pitcock is up to, you can direct all inquiries to the "Law Office of Jeremy Pitcock."

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/0A1/690

tabbing a full inch looks doopid, too. why not right justify too to complete the "brochure" look?

tabbing a full inch looks doopid, too. why not right right justify too to complete the "brochure" look?

4:41 - you don't even have to go as far as finding another partner, the firm itself has an office in Newark. No diversity here.

5:19(1) -- Wow. The guy had a good career going considering he went to Penn State Law - Philly Campus. Shame.

People may have different conceptions about what constitutes a shotgun pleading, but in the opinion of Judge Tjoflat any complaint where each count incorporates all prior counts qualifies.
His main beef seems to be that only facts material to a count or claim should be included in that count or claim (not "cause of action," a "cause of action" properly refers to the transaction or occurrence giving rise to a claim or multiple claims--notwithstanding New York's longstanding and incorrect pleading practice of labeling counts as causes of action).

amazing, especially for an ip guy. this should only get better as things proceed

I wonder whether this fellow, Pitcock, was the person at Kasowitz that has visited my blog on multiple occassions.

Furthermore, and as an aside, however adolescent xoxo'ers seem to be, these people did get my blog some attention.

I sure wish I had been countersued. At least what happened wouldn't have been swept under the legal rug.

My apologies for my fixation on my own circumstance. It's not going to over until it's over.

It's one thing to set out a bunch of facts material to all counts and then incorporate those. Incorporating the previous counts, though, makes no sense--unless one of the later counts is derivative of an earlier count, such as in a vicarious liability context.

I can't believe we've finally gotten the scandalous details of this guy's "extremely inappropriate personal behavior," and all you people want to talk about is shotgun pleading and diversity jurisdiction.

For shame.

4:27 and 4:50 -- before you assume that the firm will have to force the associates to testify, did you ever consider that a group of smart, strong-willed women might be willing to take on this douchebag and end his career once and for all? Maybe for revenge; maybe to make this profession better for all of us (and I'm a guy, but I have a daughter...); maybe because testifying is just the right thing to do -- and none of them did ANYTHING wrong.

Spectacularly stupid is Mr. Pitcock.

I have an Andrew Jackson that says he will someday be convicted of a number of murders of prostitutes along some backwoods state highway...

Reason #1 why ATL commenters suck: On a thread detailing and linking to a ridiculously salacious complaint, numerous commenters are instead quibbling about shotgun pleadings.

Paragraph 41: Yeah, right.

no, 5:23, you're misinterpreting Tjoflat's statement. It's not the incorporation by reference that makes an approach "shotgun," it's when the such incorporation by reference "[leads] to a situation where most of the counts (i.e., all but the first) contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions."

The worst part about this is that there are probably a lot of other lawyers out there who are exactly like this guy.

"I'm still trying to figure out what upset KBT&F so much about M&F's announcement that they had to issue that press release of theirs in the first place. Geez, someone left your firm. Bygones."

Disagree. They fired his ass and the new firm put out an ad saying he "jumped ship" and creating the impression, however slight, that he was moving on to greener pastures. My only question is why they didn't sue M&F and/or Pitcock for libel/slander/defamation (sorry I'm a corporate lawyer, forgot the difference) for M&F's press release.

I don't get it. What did this guy do wrong?

Harmless flirting is not a breach of fiduciary duty.

If this is all true, this guy is crazy!! It's hard to believe that higher ups in the firm didn't hear about this before the Christmas party. If there was no formal complaint, there'd at least be rumors about this behavior.

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Pitcock&fname=Jeremy

He's a Democrat.

If that guy was better looking, his tactics likely would have succeeded.

For any procedural nerds who were wondering why KB's suit wasn't fashioned as a cross-complaint, a PACER search revealed that Pitcock voluntarily dismissed his federal court action on July 3 (in the face of a LETTER submitted by S&C to Judge Sprizzo explaining how sanctionably absurd the assertion of federal jurisdiction was). Pitcock will now no doubt re-file in state court, but now he will be the cross-complainant. What a fundamental error on Pitcock's attorney's part.

5:43 wrote: "Disagree. They fired his ass and the new firm put out an ad saying he "jumped ship" and creating the impression, however slight, that he was moving on to greener pastures. My only question is why they didn't sue M&F and/or Pitcock for libel/slander/defamation (sorry I'm a corporate lawyer, forgot the difference) for M&F's press release."

5:43, M&F's press release did not say Pitcock "jumped ship", it just announced he joined the firm. It was a third party news report that said that he "jumped ship" (and that M&F "nabbed" him), and it was that article that pissed Kasowitz off. It's all in the prior news reports and in the Pitcock complaint.

Besides, what would the defamation have been? That M&F isn't really "greener pastures"?

5:19 Nice find on the Linked In profile. Couldn't help but notice he was the MIT football team captain. Didn't know that MIT had a football team...

5:28: agree. If I were one of those associates, I would want to tell the world about what a disgusting loser this guy is. I do feel really bad for his wife and kids though. When that baby gets old enough to google, yikes...

The link for "My Company" on his LinkedIn profile links to the Kasowitz homepage.

If a woman had behaved like this, she'd be called a stud.

Posted by guest 4:01 PM

"I thought that was a cheap shot actually. Patent lawyers generally know squat about procedure."

this patent lawyer thinks that anyone who describes himself as a "rising star" in litigation doesn't get to use the "just a patent lawyer" excuse.

What was has absurd jurisdictional argument?

I meant "his"

6:01: the defamation (or libel, or slander or whatever) would have been that he quit when he was in fact fired. But your point is taken that it wasn't M&F's words.

Re: 6:17--
Pitcock asserted diversity jurisdiction as the basis for bringing his suit in federal court. The glaring problem was that there was no complete diversity, because the defendant Kasowitz firm, as a partnership, is a citizen of every state in which any partner is a citizen. Obviously there are some Kasowitz partners who are citizens of NJ as Pitcock is. Therefore, no diversity; therefore no grounds for federal jurisdiction for Pitcock's state law based claims.

Is Pitcock a lawyer or a porn star?

kasowitz has essentially not only ruined pitcock's reputation but also destroyed this guy's marriage and family. that's cold. i hope that s&c at least negotiated with pitcock in advance and warned him "hey, if you don't drop this suit, we're gonna hit you with this". while this guy seems like a real sleazebag, his wife and kids did not do anything to deserve this.

go BALESTRIERE LANZA!

to 7:10, so if you were the wife, would you rather know now, or later?

This is seriously epic. I knew something grand was afoot when I first heard this guy's name on ATL a year (or longer) ago - I had no idea it would turn out to be this bloody EPIC though. So awesome.

This guy is such, such a tool. Feel bad for the wife and kids though.

The statement from Pitcock's lawyers is pure comedy gold, too. Talk about a shotgun complaint? This is a shotgun press release. The complaints of the women Pitcock harassed don't count because they were forced by 'old white guys' to lie, and if they weren't they should have gone to the EEOC, and if they didn't they were asking for it or something, anyway we're not going to talk about the butt-slapping but if he did say inappropriate thinks, they were jokes and everybody was drunk. So there!

@7:17: the best thing about the press release is it kind of says "hey, yeah, most of that stuff happened - but it wasn't as bad as the complaint makes it out to be, seriously!"

7:14 - if i were the wife, i'd rather find out privately, especially considering i'm not even a public figure.

7:22 - i heard lat's next big scoop will be an exclusive interview with mrs. pitcock where she will embrace her newfound publicity and leverage it into millions on the talk show circuit and a book about how to cope when you find out your husband is a dirtbag.

7:10, have you considered the possibility that Pitcock ruined his own marriage?

7:10 here - yes, pitcock ruined his own marriage and if i were the wife, i'd want to know now. my concern is that this is really a private matter and i have compassion for this woman who now has to endure the spectacular destruction of her family in public. although, leading on 7:25 - if she's savvy and stable enough emotionally, i agree that she should hire herself a PR agent and shoot for her 15 minutes worth. i also feel terrible for his young kids. in the age of google, these transgressions will hang over them for their lives.

Has anyone considered the possibility that this is all a farce? Is it really true that a man named Pitcock was an oversexed fiend who tried to sleep with anything that moved? It might be believable if he had a normal name, but this sounds like an advertising campaign by Cinemax for a late-night show.

Yeah, 7:37--good point. what's next? an oversexed doctor named Mountaindick?

very clever cinemax - you had us fooled by not using the standard names like Hugh Jazz or Haywood Jablome.

Lat--This is a family blog. Please stop printing naughty words like Pitcock.

are you kidding?

http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/cases/mit-erulkarbitran/protest-rally

in college, this very same guy was a counterprotester at a women's rally against sexual harassment. The counterprotesters were

"eight MIT students at the fringes of the gathering held up signs with slogans such as "Quit Your Bitching," "She Wanted It," "Stop Harassment of Bitran," "Sore Loser," "Liar," and "Don't Flatter Yourself.""

7:50 - that's beautiful. And before some moron calls it "ironic," it's not.

Wait, so some privileged jackass lawyer and former football jock thinks that he can assault women and engage in numerous sexual misdeeds and this is news how?

Oh, 7:50 you might want to forward that link to S&C.

That statement from Pitcock's lawyers is hilarious!

" But claims such as breach of fiduciary duty for supposedly accessing porn when nobody else sees it [...]"

So he accessed the porn, but it was fine since no one saw it? Fab.

And is this a thinly veiled threat?

"Mr. Pitcock will have no choice but to point out the ridiculous nature and inconsistencies in these claims at trial, which will undoubtedly lead to professional embarassment not only for Kasowitz, but for the women involved."

Professional embarassment for the women who spoke out? Wow. Just, wow.

"http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Pitcock&fname=Jeremy

He's a Democrat."

Not only that, but the moron wasted his money on Joe "articulate and clean" Biden.

7:50 gets a gold star for due diligence.

This will come back to bite Kasowitz, no question about it. This is two brats not playing well in the sand box at its best. If "Employees A - L" haven't hired attorneys to sue the firm, they should. Maybe they have been paid off already, but Kasowitz is essentially admitting they knew they had a "serial" harraser working for them and did nothing about it for a long time. This will backfire, no question about it. Hell, they couldn't pay me enough to lateral to this TTT and I imagine others share the feeling.

I don't know, so much of this just isn't adding up. Why did KB even need to file this complaint? Do they need Pitcock's money? Are these allegations necessary to defend against Pitcock's defamation suit -- a suit that as of now isn't even on the books? Why did they ever feel the need to open up this can of worms with their original press release? Why are they putting their associates in a position where they'll be deposed? I'm wondering if this is actually a way of making allies out of their female associates -- get them thinking, "Pitcock is the enemy, Kasowitz is my friend," seeing as how these associates clearly have a case against Kasowitz.

*curls 225*

@8:04, "And before some moron calls it "ironic," it's not."

Correct -- it would be ironic if Pitcock were one of the protesters in favor of the policy. And yet, this is more than merely coincidental. It's... it's... Pitcockian!

This guy's marriage will be fine. Just because some associates have banded together to accuse him of something doesn't mean he did it. And even if he did do it, it is likely his wife will take his word when he tells her that these associates are young, naive, shills for Marc Kasowitz.

The allegations in this complaint describe the bahavior of 90% of male partners between the ages of 35 and 50. People talk about how Pitcock should be wary of brining up character...this suit opens the door to bring up every affair of every partner, every misdeed of every partner at the firm. They will be able to (at least attempt) to show that this type of conduct was permitted of other partners. Any partner at Kasowitz who has ever so much as make an off-color joke in the office is not fair game. Mr. Kasowitz had better pray his butt is clean as a whistle!!

9:26 - you sound ridiculous

Guessing here. Pitcock filed his complaint in order to go public but to be able to have it easily dismissed if there were a settlement. It was not an error. It was a strategy. Pitcock's complaint got dismissed on 7/3. Perhaps, settlement discussions over the long weekend followed the dismissal. When no settlement was reached, Kasowitz filed its complaint on the first business day thereafter. Pitcock had seen the complaint before it was filed because his firm quickly issued a longish press release, which must have been prepared in advance.

"The allegations in this complaint describe the bahavior of 90% of male partners between the ages of 35 and 50. People talk about how Pitcock should be wary of brining up character...this suit opens the door to bring up every affair of every partner, every misdeed of every partner at the firm."

Please. Lets stop all the bullshitting about what raging, testosterone-filled Neanderthals male partners are. Lawyers are way too nerdy to sleep around. The few that try end up like Pitcock - i.e. being known as the office sketch, not actually having an affair.

his current wife was is mistress during his first marriage, clearly she is not a woman of high morals. she deserves whatever comes her way.

9:46 -

Good luck in your 3L year!

Can someone really do all that bad stuff and get away with it for that long? Isn't the firm at fault for letting things get this out of control.

I am not particularly familiar with this case. Why did Kasowitz go public with this information? Pitcock had left for Morgan & Finnegan and associates who had been harrassed by him (while he was at Kasowitz) were free to pursue individual claims. By going after Pitcock publicly, Kasowitz probably cost him his job at Morgan and basically begged to be sued.

The only way this could get any more entertaining would be if Pitcock counterclaimed for malicious prosecution or abuse of process.

"Can someone really do all that bad stuff and get away with it for that long? Isn't the firm at fault for letting things get this out of control."

I think you're underestimating the power this guy probably had over the young, female associates, which made them extremely reluctant to ever say anything about it. Think about it -- you're brand new at the firm, starting a career, and working for the big-shot guy who hired you with promises that you'll be a star. Then he gets totally sketchy on you, implicitly reminding you that he'll make your personal and professional life hell if you tell anyone. What more can the firm do, other than make it clear that they'll support the associates if and when they finally do come forward? (Which is exactly what appeared to happen here.) This is the unfortunate tragedy of anti-harrassment policies and laws -- you still have to get people to come forward, which simple circumstances may prevent them from doing.

10:05 - huh?

12:30 - Good post. I hope Kasowitz gets some heavy damages here. It would help of companies had a financial incentive (i.e. lawsuit recoveries) to go after employees who do this shit.

Seriously. Think back to how nervous and unsure of yourself you were on your first day. Then imagine that you're in a small group with a big-shot partner, and on your VERY FIRST DAY, he invites himself over to your apartment. What the hell do you do? You know you're going to have to be working for him for at least the next couple years or so. Will anyone take you seriously if you do come forward, or will you get labeled as the scandalous first year who makes allegations against the big-shot partner on her first day?

Like being a brand-new attorney isn't stressful enough. What a fucking dick and a half for doing that to these associates.

9:42:

What are you talking about? Why would he need to file a complaint that could be "easily dismissed" if there was a settlement? Are you suggesting he purposely filed a complaint that would be dismissed? Maybe I don't understand what you are saying, because that doesn't make sense.

12:30:

Great post.

Lots of people blaming the associates and taking up for an ignorant jerk...
And I may be putting the cart before the horse here, but I don't think a firm would file a suit like this unless there was overwhelming evidence that he actually did these things

9:22 -- I don't think people are blaming the associates. When Pitcock filed his complaint, people said just because something is in a pleading doesn't mean that it's true. The same goes here. Kasowitz's firm is known to fight dirty and this complaint, true or false, is just one more example of it.

Bottom line, don't work there at any level. And the associates who are coming to the firm's defense today may be in its sights tomorrow.

I don't believe in sexual harassment because I don't think men should be punished for making small talk.

If allegations true: A guy like this doesn't think any associate (especially 1st yr./1st day!) would ever come forward and report his behavior because they will be labeled a trouble-maker -- the associate would be afraid of being retaliated against at current firm or if the firm is first class (as Kasowitz is) and takes the complaint seriously, he/she would feel uncomfortable to stay at same firm too much longer (unfortunate, but trues, no matter how much firm attempts to do right thing). Associate will then have this story with them as they search for new job and will not find work again in BigLaw if this was made public. In short, associate is generally scared off to say anything, partner knows it and takes advantage.

this is all true, however, there has got to be something that a firm can do without it leading to this. this is not against kasowitz as i think they are a good place

Do KB clients really pay $400+ / hour for such timid and weak-kneed associates?

Even as unbelievable as this whole thing is, I can't believe that his stupid attorney made that stupid statement. S&C is going to murder this guy and his pathetic client. If much of their complaint is true, he absolutely deserves it, too.

Great post--Lat must have tipped them off

http://www.popehat.com/2008/07/08/jeremy-pitcock-learns-about-the-consequences-of-the-rush-to-the-courthouse/

That "statement" was terrible. The not so subtle threat against the female accusers was pathetic.

MIT 1994 Grad. That explains it. Socially inept baggadouche has no idea what is expected of people in civilized society.

"The odds are good but the goods are odd.'

Wow, that is a jaw-dropping statement by the attorney. Does he really think he is going to be perceived as the good guy while making veiled threats against the women that his client is alleged to have harassed and in some cases practically assaulted? Excellent PR, right there.

Lat, you should do a new post on that popehat coverage of the story. Hilarious.

Kasowitz is such a slimebag place and of course they hire S&C who is proud of the fact that they represented the Nazis. They trash a guy's career for what sounds like relatively harmless flirting and a he-said she-said incident in the First Year's Apartment. Am I the only one here who thinks that the Kasowitz stories sound pretty flimsy?

12:24 aka Jeremy Pitcock

@2:24 - Apparently, yes.

Some of KBT&F's allegations sound serious at least from the complaint - but who knows how they've twisted the stories to put the guy in the worst possible light. For example, since when is encouraging a lateral associate to socialize after hours at a bar with other from the department -- sexual harassment?? The guy was obviously joking when he asked two women if they would be his date to the Patent Ball - or whatever it is. Did these women really take him seriously? Doesn't sound like real harassment to me.

I thought you had to make repeated sexual advances against a single employee for it to count as a hostile work environment. The S&C complaint exaggerates to an unbelievable degree when they describe such behavior as sexual harassment.

Did they file this complaint just to harass him further? Since when can an EMPLOYER file a sexual harassment claim against an employee? Isn't the EMPLOYER liable for such conduct? If so, they are claiming that the Kasowitz firm is liable for Pitcock's alleged conduct.

If there was anything to these claims, would they really be claiming that Pitcock engaged in sexual harassment??? They would basically be saying that they are on the hook for serious sexual harassment. The Kasowitz complaint just doesn't make sense for an employment lawyer's point of view. The Kasowitz complaint just doesn't add up.

I knew Jeremy for a long time, since we were kids, and he has some very redeeming qualities. He is not all "sleeze" as some of you have touted. If he indeed made other co-workers and women feel uncomfortable or scared, I am sure he will do the right thing and be accountable for his actions as his parents have always raised him to do. This does not mean dwelling on the bad events that may have happened here, but moving forward to resolve and repair this issue and get on with his life. The best thing he can do to show his innocence (or guilt if that is the case) is to be the better man and be honest about his actions. He may not be able to practice law in New York again, but he may at least walk away showing that he can learn from his mistakes and hopefully salvage some of his integrity and trustworthiness if there is still some left to salvage.

They don't sound flimsy at all to me--if the accounts are accurate there will be a lot of witnesses, for example the doorman and boyfriend of the one associate, for starters.

Hey there 12:35. I think you are missing the point...whether going to the bar for a drink was sexual harrassment or not, it still made the ladies feel uncomfortable with their working environment. It is hard enough some days to drag your butt out of bed for work, let alone to go to an office where you feel you have to turn down another hallway or ditch into an office to avoid seeing or talking to one particular person. Sexual harrassment comes in all shapes and sizes and isn't always a black and white action but a perception by the recipient. If he made these ladies feel uncomfortable, he needs to own up to it and fix it!

From everything I've heard, both S&C and Kasowitz are firms in which a lot of the partners are mean dirtbags - and this Pitcock guy's comments hardly touch the stuff I have heard about other partners at Kasowitz.

I have heard that Mark Kasowitz himself has done a lot of stuff under the radar from his wife. Not to mention other partners at his firm. There are no women partners with any say in how the firm is run.

The statements made to Charney sounded like real harassment. The stuff in Kasowitz's complaint apart from the alleged kiss - just doesn't sound like harassment. How is Kasowitz so certain that the girl is telling the truth and not their former partner? Is it based on one other incident when he goes up to another associate's apartment, with the boyfriend there? That story doesn't sound credible either. Unless Pitcock is deaf, how could he NOT have heard the doorman say that the boyfriend was upstairs?

12:35 The complaint does make sense. By sexually harassing these women, he placed himself and more importantly the other partners in the firm in a precarious situation. Sexual harassment leads to lawsuits which leads to the loss of money. Here, Pitcock breached his fiduciary duty by placing the firm in this position.

I agree with 12:46. It definitely sounds like he made some women feel uncomfortable. But does that mean that Kasowitz can destroy the guy's career and stop him from practicing law at a major law firm. Have you ever done anything that you later realized was not perhaps done in the best judgment? I would hate to ever touch foot at that firm for fear of making any mistakes. In the larger picture, I would say that what Kasowitz did was far worse.

12:49 - How do you know that he sexually harassed anyone? How does the firm know? They never even got HIS SIDE OF THE STORY. I have never heard of a sexual harassment investigation where the firm fails to get the guy's point of view. Sounds like they were intent on crucifying the guy, without him ever having a chance to defend himself.

Name partner Kasowitz is known as a "mercurial" guy who runs the firm like a dictator with a few his crony partners. If one of them had it in for him, he didn't even stand a chance.

Does Kasowitz even have standing to sue in the place of the women who are the real parties in interest?

Kasowitz does fight mean and dirty - and there are others who have accused them of knowingly spreading lies about others when it suits their interest. Did anyone ever hear about the time when name partner Kasowitz threatened an author for publishing a book that said things about Trump which Trump and Kasowitz disagreed with. He said to the guy at his book signing "stop publicizing your book or we're going to get you." Kasowitz was identified by witnesses as the guy who made the threat.

Um, guess what, recent commenters: this isn't a sexual harrassment lawsuit. It's for defamation and breach of fiduciary duty. The Kasowitz firm fired him because of his misconduct, and the guy turned around and implied that he left because Kasowitz was falling apart. As this can definitely harm Kasowitz's business, they choose to hint at why he really left the firm. Pitcock calls their bluff and sues them for defamation. Which can *really* hurt business. So Kasowitz lowers the boom and sues him for defamation and breach of the fiduciary duty -- almost certainly after conducting a thorough investigation, speaking to the associates involved, and getting their consent to put their allegations in a complaint (knowing that they would have to vouch for them under oath if it came to that).

As far as getting Pitcock's "side of the story" -- the complaint states that the firm did indeed go to him to ask him to explain himself. Eventually, the partners decided that this wasn't sufficient and, for the good of their own firm, they fired him. If they hadn't, we'd be reading a post right now about how "Kasowitz systemically ignores claims of harrassment against females."

The guy has clearly spent his professional life crossing the line, and he finally got called out for it after it happened to enough women that they decided to speak up. Good for them, and good riddance to him.

Most of the conduct alleged against Pitcock occurred when he was a first year partner and before he was made head of the department. Do you really think that the associates were really so afraid of him at that point that they all felt they could not speak out?

And why did nothing come out on the blogs until after Kasowitz filed their suit. If he harassed 12 WOMEN - wouldn't it have been impossible for none of this to get out until now?

What are the damages for an insulting comment or joke at a holiday party? I would like to know so I can sue.

12:57 and 1:09 --

Both of these comments use the phrase "name partner Kasowitz." That is not terminology that ordinary speakers of the English language use, much less law students or lawyers who tend to frequent this blog.

Which leads me to believe that (a) these comments are written by the same person, and (b) this person is not a law student or lawyer, but someone affiliated with Pitcock in another sense (personal acquaintance, member of his PR team), who is trying to plant comments in his favor.

Wasn't this supposed to be about "Extremely Inappropriate Conduct"? I was expecting to hear that the guy was jerking off in the ladies bathroom. Not minor comments I hear everyday or alleged flirting.

LOL at almost all comments since 12:24. I'd be willing to bet that they are all from the same IP address, although since he has no job Pitcock may have time to walk around New York posting comments from different computers.

I've heard and seen much much worse than anything alleged here. The worst is the kiss in the first year's apartment - but there are some very good reasons to question the associate's story. Why would a grown adult take a guy she's not interested in into her bedroom? Was she forced to do so?

My guess is that Pitcock is not the first to have too much to drink at a Kasowitz holiday party. Just the first that Kasowitz tried to ruin.

1:14 and 1:17 --

Also obviously the same person.

Come on, this isn't even hard...

12:30 / 9:52 / 2:12 + other commenters about whether it could / would get out or not.

Even if the first day, first year female attorney was too scared to tell the management (partners or firm administrator or whomever), eventually she'd get friendly with other associates and tell one or more of them. Generally, that's how things come out. She tells her friend who tells someone else who says, "Oh my god, the same thing happened to me!" and eventually either (1) it just gets widely known through chat or (2) a couple people who'd had similar experiences feel emboldened enough to tell.

In short, I'd bet the firm knew he was acting inappropriately long before he got canned. He just finally stepped over the line and became more of a liability than an asset at the X-mas party. It's all about the money.

I agree with 1:24, some of these entries do seem like a PR stunt to boost Pitcock's side. Again, it is so disappointing to know that Jeremy or any one affiliated with him would continue to throw mud and try to get the water as cloudy as can be. It sounds like a political campaign more than a law suit! Jeremy claims that he was railroaded, and knew they were looking for a way to run his train off the track, why did he give him that reason??? And yes, I do think there have been many other misconduct issues at MANY law firms, heck at many other business in general. That does not make his case any better or justify his actions by saying that what he did wasn't worse than anyone else--so therefore it was okay. If he did the things being alleged, then he was in the wrong and needs to make it right. Come on Jeremy--if you did it, just own up to it and fix it. This is one moment in your life when you get to define what is truly important to you--the money, the career or something more......

"Why would a grown adult take a guy she's not interested in into her bedroom?"

That makes my skin crawl. The story says he asked to see her apartment. I've recently moved into a new house and shown several male friends and colleagues around the house and none thought that the fact I included the bedroom in the tour meant I wanted them.

I can't believe that some of you think that inviting himself up to a young female associate's apartment, insisting on going up despite her attempts to disinvite him, and then forcibly kissing are are "mere flirting." Or that patting a female associate on the buttocks and then threatening her with the nickname "office bitch" is mere flirting. Or that calling a young female associate whom he "assigned" to have drinks with him to complain that she didn't stick around, and didn't call back, etc., is "mere flirting."

On whether the firm's response to the MF press release was overkill, whether the firm knew the magnitude of his misconduct prior to December 20007, whether it is trying to pre-empt a suit against the firm by the harassed associates, etc., I express no opinion at the moment. But that Pitcock was a catastrophe waiting to be revealed is clear. It is entirely credible to me (as a female lawyer who in her younger days was the recipient of several embarrassing "compliments" from senior associates and partners, and never reported them to anyone) that these young women would have been reluctant to report Pitcock's behavior until they realized that they were not the only ones who were being subjected to it. Apparently, Pitcock made such a spectacle of himself at the Xmas party that the victims were able to identify each other.

He should have negotiated and executed a separation agreement with the firm (which the firm apparently offered), which would have included not just a financial payment but a no-disparagement clause that applied equally to both the firm and to him. He also should have gotten himself a MUCH better lawyer.

1:16 - probably to distinguish between firm Kasowitz and individual Kasowitz. Assumption (a) is probably correct, but (b) is a leap of faith.

Either way, glad to see he got the boot, if the allegations are true. Yes, there were 4 or 5 partners at a firm I previously worked with who were like that, and they probably deserved it as well. Now, I work in another office just as large, and haven't heard any complaints or rumblings about these types of behaviors. It's an office culture issue. If it's tolerated, it can become endemic.

Would be interesting to hear from some Kasowitz associates as to the firms culture and what is considered "inappropriate" behavior. I just have a feeling that what they consider "appropriate" may be way over the line from what most people consider appropriate.

"It is entirely credible to me . . . that these young women would have been reluctant to report Pitcock's behavior until they realized that they were not the only ones who were being subjected to it. Apparently, Pitcock made such a spectacle of himself at the Xmas party that the victims were able to identify each other."
That is a very plausible theory of what went on - people kept quiet about these things, until he did it in such a public way that several women realized "ah, its not just me, I'm not alone in this." Behavior like this doesn't just come out of nowhere. This guy probably did things like to far more victims the ones identified by letter in this lawsuit, but the earlier ones never came forward, left the firm at some point, or asked to be left out of the lawsuit.

12:46 and 12:53 - Come on, otherwise acceptable behavior (like inviting someone to have a drink) that happens to make someone uncomfortable is not sexual harassment.

So a nice guy (hold all your snide comments AU grads/stttudents) becomes a harrasser if he asks a woman in his office to lunch or a drink if she thinks every guy who says hi to her is hitting on her? Seriously? I've seen women be offended by a man holding a door for them. Is that harassment? And what about tea-bagging?

2:32--It is not the invite to the bar, it is the INSISTENCE of the invite to the bar. If the ladies declined and he continued to pursue, then yes, that would be sexually harrassing activity. Plus, are you disregarding the other items claimed like the butt slap and the comments about making women "happy"??? These are not acceptable in any circumstance except behind closed doors in your home. Trust me, there are plenty of women that would engage in the activites that Jeremy may have been alluding to however, random hits on new employees sounds more like a shark looking for fresh meat than a man looking for companionship from a woman. Not to mention--HE IS MARRIED WITH A PREGNANT WIFE AT HOME!!!!!!! Why is he at the bar with other women anyway??? That brings his character under speculation all together.

2:32--It is not the invite to the bar, it is the INSISTENCE of the invite to the bar. If the ladies declined and he continued to pursue, then yes, that would be sexually harrassing activity. Plus, are you disregarding the other items claimed like the butt slap and the comments about making women "happy"??? These are not acceptable in any circumstance except behind closed doors in your home. Trust me, there are plenty of women that would engage in the activites that Jeremy may have been alluding to however, random hits on new employees sounds more like a shark looking for fresh meat than a man looking for companionship from a woman. Not to mention--HE IS MARRIED WITH A PREGNANT WIFE AT HOME!!!!!!! Why is he at the bar with other women anyway??? That brings his character under speculation all together.

Between Sitrick and Sullivan how much do you think Kasowitz is spending to ruin this guy's life? Come on, we all know of partners who have done much worse without having them attacked publicly. They were clearly doing it to steal business.

2:47- I disagree. Department heads at my law firm routinely would try and coral the troops to participate in department social events. What does his pregnant wife have to do with going out for drinks with the IP associates? Read the complaint again, he didn't invite an associate out for drinks one-on-one but invited her to drink with others from the department.

2:46 /2:47 - you repeated the same entry. Have you never been out socializing with people from work? There were probably women and men going out for drinks - not just women. Your notion that he was just inviting women out for drinks is not surprising given the one-sided nature of the complaint.

the pitcock socks on here are NAUSEATING.

Anyone who has been to a firm holiday party and after-party knows that partners and associates alike can say drunkenly flirty and stupid things. Though it sounds like he had gotten a little out of hand, I've never heard of a partner getting terminated for such conduct.

As for the other allegations concerning the first year associate - I agree with other comments saying that its murky whether she was forced as her story is not very believable. If they were true, however, then they had a reason to terminate him, not to destroy his career.

3:06 - what is up with all the repulsive language in the above blog entries concerning Pitcock? It seems like all of the dreg lawyers In New York and their PR firms are having a field day attacking this poor guy.

you cant blame him, just look at his name! what do you want, this was his pre-destiny

3:16-post of the thread

3:10: attacking pitcock? i know you are not joking, and clearly you are not disinterested, but i really wish you were. its the poor associates in this who are getting reamed on this site and pawned by their firm.

3:10: attacking pitcock? i know you are not joking, and clearly you are not disinterested, but i really wish you were. its the poor associates in this who are getting reamed on this site and pawned by their firm.

3:17 thank you.

so many of the commenters on this site are as dumb as rocks. for shame.

3:29 - Here here. I second that. What stupid commentary for such an interesting case.

WOW - if you look at just the facts alleged in the Kasowitz complaint and none of the unfounded statements concerning Pitcock's state of mind, they've got nothing on this guy except a butt slap and first year associate's story (without witnesses) of a forced kiss in her apartment. I don't see anything **extremely inappropriate** here.

OK, all you male chauvinists who think the "forced kiss" is no big deal, put yourself in her shoes. You're a young male associate, and an older male partner pressures you into your own apartment, then plants one on you. How do you feel now? How do you feel about going to work the next day? How do you feel about continuing to work for the guy?

1:17(2): totally agreee. i suspect that pitcock is sitting in what he thinks is an anonymous internet cafe posting most of this crap.

dude, you're just making yourself look worse! your ruse is transparent, and is doing nothing to support your position.

3:29: Query: would a "stupid commenter" be one who didn't know that the expression is in fact "hear, hear"? What did you expect on ATL, anyway? Hmmm, its almost like you don't regularly come on this site and only do so once you've been sued!

There are a lot of people who don't like KBT&F.

Having followed all the previous ATL posts on Pitcock, I would guess that there are a lot of people who are disinterested on this site. Pitcock alleged that Kasowitz and their PR firm Sitrick have been on the blogs trying to smear this guy.

Why do people think Pitcock is writing posts like 3:46?

Is 4:44 saying that Pitcock would write 3:46 just because the blog entry says that the comments on this thread are worse than moronic? I would agree, if not with his wording.

I was a classmate of Pitcock's at Penn. He's a big guy (tall) whose weight ballooned after law school. when i saw him at STB several years ago I'd say he was near 300 pounds. At Penn always came off a jerk, hostile, aggressive. Smart, but a bully. not a democrat despite his contribution to Biden, a strident right winger actually. His first wife was a classmate of ours who was one of the most progressive women in our class. Never could understand that pairing.

4:26 whats the big deal

4:26 -

Clearly, you are a woman. A man on man kiss?

Punch, punch...honey.

5:24 --

Of course I'm a woman. What's your point? The purpose of making it man on man was to avoid the all too foreseeable "ha! i would love working for a cougar!" comments and thus construct a hypothetical that would actually instill discomfort akin to what these associates must have felt. 4:26

5:24 just got owned, or pwned, or whatever. Please do answer the question that 4:26/6:02 posed to you: what's your point?

Love,
A Man Who Would Plant a Wet One on 5:24 Just to See Him Cry

all of the men at kasowitz are douchebags. this is not news people

He did it...I know because he did it to me years ago while he was still in law school and I was actually afraid of him. He would harass me, show up at my apartment, leave scary messages and ultimately made a big, drunk sloppy move that would count as assault in most states. This is a pattern with Jeremy. It's sad and pitiful. So much potential. So little self control.

People need to be careful about the comments they are making here.

Careful what they say here? What would be the point? Everyone knows this is a 'news and gossip' (operational word is gossip) site and everyone should take any given post with a rock of salt. I for one don't buy half the things I read here. But, laugh just the same.

Careful what they say here? What would be the point? Everyone knows this is a 'news and gossip' (operational word is gossip) site and everyone should take any given post with a rock of salt. I for one don't buy half the things I read here. But, laugh just the same.

I don't believe a word I read on this blog or thread cuz Kasowitz has been paying its own goons and its PR firm Sitrick to blast the guy every chance they can get.

I know Pitcock though we've haven't been in touch since law school. Anyone who knows Pitcock, knows that he would never harass a woman. Regarding his political leanings, he was a libertarian in law school not a strident right winger. I guess that means he leans right, but it also meant he was always progressive on women's issues as well which explains why his first wife was one of the most progressive and most feminist women in our law school class.

I received an offer to work w/ Kasowitz in Fall of '07 as a first year associate. Out of all people I have interviewed with in the course of my law school job-searching career, Pitcock stood out as the most offensive (some guy from Kaye Scholer ranks second). I found him condescending/arrogant/insulting. I am a minority female, 5’ 2” and I look easy to bully because I look much younger than my 29 years. He made comments about my heritage. I went to an ivy league for u.grad & grad, and a top 25 law school. Pitcock thought I went to a shitty law school. He proceeded to point out that he couldn’t figure out why I went to a prominent undergrad/grad and ended up at what he deemed was a very non prestigious law school. (I’ve read about interview tactics like that, didn’t really think they existed) I pointed out to him it was in the top #25, and that Kasowitz wanted to interview me despite that alleged imperfection. I recall the rest of the interview being centered around trying to antagonize me and watching my reaction. Needless to say, I was shocked to get an offer. But more shocking was that the starting salary they offered me (--I verified this--) was less than what they paid comparable male colleagues. It made the decision to take off and work in an IP boutique in another state easier. But needless to say I had doubts as to whether I made the right decision career-wise and so forth… until now. I guess the insulting below market/sexist pay was a blessing in disguise.